Supreme Court of the United States, 1890

In re Lancaster

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided December 5, 1890 · Fuller

137 U.S. 393; 11 S. Ct. 117; 34 L. Ed. 713; 1890 U.S. LEXIS 2098 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. Washington Dessau for the petitioner., Mr. Attorney General opposing.

Cases that cite this one

18 later published cases cite this decision.

In re Bell (Cal. 1942)
Overholser v. Treibly (D.C. Cir. 1945)
United States Ex Rel. Potts v. Rabb (3d Cir. 1944)
Enge v. Clark (9th Cir. 1944)
Ex parte Finn (District Court, E.D. Kentucky 1936)
Dockter v. White (8th Cir. 1928)
Bens v. United States (2d Cir. 1920)
Ex parte Blazekovic (District Court, E.D. Michigan 1918)
Ex parte Tinkoff (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1918)
Hooper v. Remmel (8th Cir. 1908)
In re Davis (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1930)
Springfield Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Barnett (Tex. App. 1919)
Ex parte Doyle (W. Va. 1907)
Riggins v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1905)
In re. Dykes and Baker (Okla. 1903)
In re Hacker (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 1896)
In re Chapman (Supreme Court of the United States 1895)
In re Greene (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Ohio 1892)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller

delivered the opinion of the court.

The petitioners were indicted under sections 5508 and 5509 of the Revised Statutes, on the 20th of November, 1890, in the Circuit Court for the Southern ‘District of Georgia, and have been taken into custody. They have not invoked the action of the Circuit Court upon the sufficiency of the indictment by a motion to quash or otherwise, but ask leave to file in this court a petition for a writ'of habeas corpus, upon the ground that the matters and things set forth and charged do not constitute any offence or offences under the laws of the United States, or cognizable in the Circuit Court, and that for other reasons the indictment cannot be sustained. In this posture of the case we must decline to interfere.

The application for leave to file the petition is

Denied.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.